So, you don't think that being hit by airplanes changes the odds of collapsing buildings
Yes of course Dave in respect of the buildings hit by planes.
But as I understand it, the claim is basically that it was the fire that weakened the structures.
I think the buildings were supposed to be able to absorb an impact of a plane and so the fire was seen as the cause as it softened the steel.
And it seems the fires were not that big at deal at the start ... obviously these buildings could be the first but it is odd which is not unreasonable to conclude.
It may be a first ...well it was...that is what is odd.
They all came down in an orderly fashion ... neat not falling to one side or the other...not stopping part way down...if you look on utube you can see many examples of buildings not collapsing in an orderly fashion...is it not reasonable to expect (a) a building could fall to one side. (b) the fall could stop at some point (c) the collapse could follow a hesitant course (d) at various stages the collapse slowed due to resistence.
Any of the above would leave one able to say that it was not orderly...
What does molten iron look like when coming out of a 100-story tall building burning from jet fuel?
Possibly like what the "water fall" of bright material looked like you see clearly in the various videos.
That is all I have seen.
It seems like molten iron (or steel) to me.
It looks the colour you would expect from iron but as I said it could be plastic but I doubt it could be alluminium as the colour would be different...
The molten alluminoum that I have seen looks like mercury..most distinctive.
But I have not seen what witnesses say they saw down the bottom calling it molten steel...there are a number of those accounts.
They may have seen alluminium but alluminium probably would solidify before it made it all the way down...Thats just guessing I know but I expect an expert would say similar...molten iron I think stays molten longer...but I guess.
The answer will be out there but I am not trying to prove a point and accept that my understanding of molten metal is limited to playing around with a home made forge.
Is it significantly different from, say, molten aluminum to the eye of the layperson fleeing for their life?
Eyewitnesses are unreliable and more so under stress but I think I could tell the difference by eye...and you could think that the various firemen who provided eye witness accounts could well have seen both melted iron and melted alluminium in their time spent attending fires.
But the thing is it seems their accounts were not considered or was their reasons for saying molten iron as oppossed to molten alluminium considered nor their reason to call it molten iron when given we have burning alluminium planes anyones expectation would be that anything molten must be alluminium.
Plane crashes its burning so what I see must be molten alluminium...wouldnt you expect folk to be reaching for a molten alluminium explanation rather than molten iron...why would you even think molten iron in the circumstances...and we are dealing with firemen who no doubt have seen both and expecting molten alluminium and not molten iron.
So dismissing the eyewitnesses seems most odd.
What do you have to compare it to?
As I said many of the witnesses were firemen...not at all lay people in this area...dont you think a fireman may have seen molten stuff in his fires and be able to tell alluminium from iron.
I think they would but againt no one seems to have asked them nor nailed down that it was steel or alluminium..that is odd dont you think?
Failing beams must always look like - what - splintered wood?
Sure...you are kidding I know but take the time to look at the beams that show a straight cut with not any sign of a twist at all...they look like they have been cut with an oxy cut welder ...they do just look different to a failure thru heat and buckling.
Please have a look and tell me how you interprete such a straight cut.
Steel does not break like that ask an expert...those beams with straight cuts in no way support the notion of failure due to heat..heck if they are hot you would see a twist...something.
Now I am not an expert but I bet you can not find an expert who would say that straight cut is at all consistent with failure due to heat..
But who knows they say truth is stranger than fiction so maybe under heat stress steel beams shear neatly.
Is this in contrast to all the other instances of 100-story buildings being felled by commercial planes in the middle of downtown Manhattan, with toxic and burning substances amongst 8 million citizens - and the very real possibility that the attacks aren't over?
So you try and make me sound stupid.
Is it stupid to put the wreckage of a plan crash in a place where engineers can look at all of it and work out the failures?
Is it stupid to propose that the wreckage of the first three buildings to have collapsed as a result of impact or fire be set aside firstly to know more about what failed and why and to be placed in a position to make recommendations for future buildings so as to help prevent future collapse in such circumstances...
I do think few would consider keeping the wreckage stupid or unproductive.
I think most folk would say selling it to China was stupid and smackes of cover up.
I dont know we could take a poll but looking at the wreckage of a crashed plan is not stupid and by extention looking at what was left after the disaster would have been informative...noy stupid at all.
Throw all your expectations out the window.
Absolutely...and probably one expectation to throw out is that poorly trained folk could control a plane and hit a target when travelling at a speed where the wings could fall off when folk who fly planes as a life long profession can not do so even after many attempts in state of the art flight simulators.
I once rejected all the stuff you see on the various truther sites but I realised that I was no better than Jan ...unable to just look at what is being presented before I reject it and if you take the time to look I think you will find stuff that is very difficult to get past.
If all the evidence was presented it may not reach the level required for a criminal matter..proof beyond reasonable doubt...but if a civil matter..proof that a reasonable man could accept I think a civil standard would be met.
Dave have you looked at any video?
Alex